DOCSLIB.ORG

Political Party Funding: Controversies and Reform Since 1997

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Political Party Funding: Controversies and Reform Since 1997 BRIEFING PAPER Number 07152, 24 March 2016 Political party funding: By Elise Uberoi controversies and reform since 1997 Inside: 1. Introduction 2. Why is party funding contentious? 3. The situation before 1997 4. Party funding: 1997-2010 5. Party funding: 2010-2015 6. Party funding in the 2015 Parliament 7. What next for party funding reform? www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Number 07152, 24 March 2016 2 Contents Summary 3 1. Introduction 4 2. Why is party funding contentious? 6 2.1 The need for party funding 6 2.2 Public funding 6 2.3 Private funding 6 2.4 Party funding statistics 7 3. The situation before 1997 9 3.1 Public funding 9 3.2 Private funding 9 4. Party funding: 1997-2010 10 4.1 The Committee on Standards in Public Life (1998) and PPERA (2000) 10 4.2 The Electoral Commission review (2004) 11 4.3 ‘Cash for honours’ (2006) and the Electoral Administration Act 2006 11 4.4 Inquiries: Constitutional Affairs Select Committee (2006) and Phillips (2007) 12 The Constitutional Affairs Select Committee (CASC) 12 Sir Hayden Phillips 12 4.5 The Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 13 5. Party funding: 2010-2015 15 5.1 The Committee on Standards in Public Life (2011) 15 5.2 The Electoral Commission review (2013) 16 5.3 The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 and other developments 16 Draft Bill 17 Labour Party reform 17 5.4 Allegations and scandals reported by the press 17 5.5 The 2015 General Election 18 6. Party funding in the 2015 Parliament 19 6.1 Short Money and the Policy Development Grant 19 6.2 Trade Union Bill 2015-16 20 7. What next for party funding reform? 22 7.1 A cap on donations 22 To cap or not to cap? 22 Setting a level 22 7.2 Public funding 23 Increasing public assistance? 24 Public funding schemes and costs 24 Contributing Authors: Richard Keen, party funding statistics Cover page image copyright: …for Seventeenth Week ending 30th April 1908 by Phil Gyford. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 / image cropped. 3 Political party funding: controversies and reform since 1997 Summary This note gives background to the main controversies around, and attempts to reform, political party funding since 1997. Political parties contribute to the UK’s representative democracy but require income to fund their activities. Private funding of political parties is associated with the risk and perception of improper influence. Reform proposals have focused on a cap on donations and an increase in public funding. However, it has proven difficult for the parties to agree on the level of a cap on donations, and there is some resistance to increasing public funding whilst there are pressures on public spending. The finances of British political parties were largely unregulated before the Labour government that came to power in 1997 passed the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA). PPERA was based on the report on party funding by the Committee on Standards in Public Life published in 1998. It regulates the funding and spending of political parties, candidates and certain others, and created the Electoral Commission to monitor compliance. During the Labour Governments in power between 1997 and 2010, party funding reviews were carried out by the Electoral Commission (2004), the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee (2006) and Sir Hayden Phillips (2007). PPERA was modified by the Electoral Administration Act 2006 that subjected loans to the same rules as donations, and the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 that introduced new spending limits and altered donation reporting thresholds. The Coalition Government in office from 2010 until 2015 included a commitment to party funding reform in its coalition agreement. Reports on party funding were published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life (2011) and the Electoral Commission (2013). Cross- party talks broke down in 2013. The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 restricted the funding and spending of non- party campaigners during election periods. The Conservative Government elected in 2015 reduced the public funding available to opposition parties. The Trade Union Bill 2015-16 introduced on 15 July 2016 includes provisions that could have implications for the funding the Labour Party receives from trade unions. Number 07152, 24 March 2016 4 1. Introduction The funding of political parties in the UK has been a source of controversy for decades. This Briefing Paper explains why party funding is contentious, and discusses the main developments, controversies and attempts at reform since 1997. For more information on the rules that apply to different forms of party funding, see Library Briefing Paper 7137 Political party funding: sources and regulations. In the 1990s, several scandals connecting donations and loans made to political parties to particular policy decisions and nominations for peerages created pressure for reform. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA) introduced a regulatory framework that controls party funding and expenditure (PPERA has subsequently been amended by other legislation). PPERA also made political parties’ reliance on donations more transparent, although this has not necessarily led to an increase in public trust.1 Cross-party talks about party funding reform broke down in 2013. There was some pressure to revive them after the 2015 general election. During a debate in the House of Lords on 10 December 2014, the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Dykes said: This matter really needs to be dealt with very urgently indeed now. […] Presumably, alas, we cannot do it before the general election, for obvious reasons, but we must surely return to it after the election.2 Similarly, the Labour peer and former Electoral Commissioner Lord Kennedy of Southwark emphasised that: It is important that we have healthy political parties that can function properly and that the political system is free from the suspicion of acting improperly in relation to party funding matters. While we often sit and watch the TV or see in the newspapers an opponent’s party getting caught up in all sorts of funding nonsense … in the end we all lose because people begin to think that all the parties are at it. They think that the system is corrupt and we all suffer as a result. It is really important that we get this right. There should be no winners or losers, but a fair, functioning system that actually respects everyone.3 Lord Wallace of Saltaire, speaking for the Coalition Government, concluded the debate by stating that party funding “is an issue to which we will all have to return after the next election”.4 The Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party stated a commitment to party funding reform in their manifestos for the 2015 general election. This Briefing Paper explains why party funding is contentious; discusses the situation before the Labour Party gained power in 1997 and the main developments under the Labour governments of 1997-2010, as 1 Constitutional Affairs Committee, Party Funding, 13 December 2006, HC 163 2006- 7, para 51 2 Lord Dykes, HL Deb 10 Dec 2014 cc GC512 3 Lord Kennedy of Southwark, HL Deb 10 Dec 2014 cc GC518 4 Lord Wallace of Saltaire, HL Deb 10 Dec 2014 cc GC522 5 Political party funding: controversies and reform since 1997 well as under the Coalition Government of 2010-2015, and the current Conservative Government. It concludes by analysing the main options for reform. Number 07152, 24 March 2016 6 2. Why is party funding contentious? This section explains why parties need income, and discusses the issues that arise in relation to public funding and private funding, respectively. Finally, it provides statistical information on party funding. 2.1 The need for party funding Political parties play an important role in modern mass democracies. The late political scientist Peter Mair explained that parties serve several functions: they “are seen to integrate and … mobilize the citizenry; to articulate and aggregate interests, and then to translate these into public policy; to recruit and promote political leaders, and to organize the parliament, the government and the key institutions of the state”.5 To perform these functions, political parties need money. They need to pay the rent on their offices, hire staff, research policy alternatives, and produce campaign material. Electoral campaigns in particular can be expensive. Campaign spending can have an impact on electoral success, along with factors such as campaign strategy and volunteer activity.6 Campaigns inform the public of the different options available to them and have a positive effect on voter turnout.7 2.2 Public funding Across Europe, states have increasingly provided public assistance to political parties. The UK is no exception, and expanding public funding has continually been proposed as an avenue for party funding reform. The arguments for and against increased public funding of political parties will be analysed in section 7.2. 2.3 Private funding Political parties can raise funding from individuals, companies or organisations. Such private funding can be considered to be an expression of political engagement, a way for people to participate in democracy by enabling parties to carry out their functions. It can also be seen as an expression of preferences: people indicate which policies they prefer by donating to the party that advocates these. Yet private funding also raises concerns. There is a concern that money can buy influence in politics, so that the wealthy have an opportunity for influence that is not open to others. Some suspect that those who donate to political parties are able to influence policy decisions in their favour.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Friend Or Foe? Lobbying in British Democracy
    Friend or Foe? Lobbying in British Democracy A discussion paper by Philip Parvin Friend or Foe? Lobbying in British Democracy Text and graphics © Hansard Society 2007 Published by the Hansard Society, 40-43 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JA Tel: 020 7438 1222. Fax: 020 7438 1229. Email: [email protected] All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, without the prior permission of the Hansard Society. The Hansard Society is an independent, non-partisan educational charity which exists to promote effective parliamentary democracy. For more information about other Hansard Society publications visit our website at www.hansardsociety.org.uk The views expressed in this publication are those of the author. The Hansard Society, as an independent non-party organisation, is neither for nor against. The Society is, however, happy to publish these views and to invite analysis and discussion of them. ISBN 978 0 900432 63 2 Cover design by Ross Ferguson Sub-editing by Virginia Gibbons Printed and bound in Great Britain by Premier Corporate Mail Limited Contents Page Foreword 3 Executive Summary 4 Introduction 5 Chapter 1: Who are the lobbyists? 9 Chapter 2: Perceptions of the Lobbying Community 22 Chapter 3: Lobbying and Democracy 31 Appendix: Research Methodology 35 1 Acknowledgements The Hansard Society is grateful to Ellwood and Atfield who have made this project possible. In particular, Ben Atfield and Gavin Ellwood have supported this discussion paper from the outset, contributed ideas to the thinking and been generous with their enthusiasm and commitment.
    [Show full text]
  • Power, Communication, and Politics in the Nordic Countries
    POWER, COMMUNICATION, AND POLITICS IN THE NORDIC COUNTRIES POWER, COMMUNICATION, POWER, COMMUNICATION, AND POLITICS IN THE NORDIC COUNTRIES The Nordic countries are stable democracies with solid infrastructures for political dia- logue and negotiations. However, both the “Nordic model” and Nordic media systems are under pressure as the conditions for political communication change – not least due to weakened political parties and the widespread use of digital communication media. In this anthology, the similarities and differences in political communication across the Nordic countries are studied. Traditional corporatist mechanisms in the Nordic countries are increasingly challenged by professionals, such as lobbyists, a development that has consequences for the processes and forms of political communication. Populist polit- ical parties have increased their media presence and political influence, whereas the news media have lost readers, viewers, listeners, and advertisers. These developments influence societal power relations and restructure the ways in which political actors • Edited by: Eli Skogerbø, Øyvind Ihlen, Nete Nørgaard Kristensen, & Lars Nord • Edited by: Eli Skogerbø, Øyvind Ihlen, Nete Nørgaard communicate about political issues. This book is a key reference for all who are interested in current trends and develop- ments in the Nordic countries. The editors, Eli Skogerbø, Øyvind Ihlen, Nete Nørgaard Kristensen, and Lars Nord, have published extensively on political communication, and the authors are all scholars based in the Nordic countries with specialist knowledge in their fields. Power, Communication, and Politics in the Nordic Nordicom is a centre for Nordic media research at the University of Gothenburg, Nordicomsupported is a bycentre the Nordic for CouncilNordic of mediaMinisters. research at the University of Gothenburg, supported by the Nordic Council of Ministers.
    [Show full text]
  • On Parliamentary Representation)
    House of Commons Speaker's Conference (on Parliamentary Representation) Session 2008–09 Volume II Written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 21 April 2009 HC 167 -II Published on 27 May 2009 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 Speaker’s Conference (on Parliamentary Representation) The Conference secretariat will be able to make individual submissions available in large print or Braille on request. The Conference secretariat can be contacted on 020 7219 0654 or [email protected] On 12 November 2008 the House of Commons agreed to establish a new committee, to be chaired by the Speaker, Rt. Hon. Michael Martin MP and known as the Speaker's Conference. The Conference has been asked to: "Consider, and make recommendations for rectifying, the disparity between the representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people in the House of Commons and their representation in the UK population at large". It may also agree to consider other associated matters. The Speaker's Conference has until the end of the Parliament to conduct its inquiries. Current membership Miss Anne Begg MP (Labour, Aberdeen South) (Vice-Chairman) Ms Diane Abbott MP (Labour, Hackney North & Stoke Newington) John Bercow MP (Conservative, Buckingham) Mr David Blunkett MP (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside) Angela Browning MP (Conservative, Tiverton & Honiton) Mr Ronnie Campbell MP (Labour, Blyth Valley) Mrs Ann Cryer MP (Labour, Keighley) Mr Parmjit Dhanda MP (Labour, Gloucester) Andrew George MP (Liberal Democrat, St Ives) Miss Julie Kirkbride MP (Conservative, Bromsgrove) Dr William McCrea MP (Democratic Unionist, South Antrim) David Maclean MP (Conservative, Penrith & The Border) Fiona Mactaggart MP (Labour, Slough) Mr Khalid Mahmood MP (Labour, Birmingham Perry Barr) Anne Main MP (Conservative, St Albans) Jo Swinson MP (Liberal Democrat, East Dunbartonshire) Mrs Betty Williams MP (Labour, Conwy) Publications The Reports and evidence of the Conference are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Below the Radar in a Big Society? Reflections on Community Engagement, Empowerment and Social Action in a Changing Policy Context
    Third Sector Research Centre Working Paper 51 Below the Radar in a Big Society? Reflections on community engagement, empowerment and social action in a changing policy context Angus McCabe December 2010 Working Paper Paper Working 51 December 2010 December Contents Introduction: defining ‘below the radar’ groups and activities ........................................................ 3 ‘Big Society’ as policy: continuity and divergence ........................................................................... 4 The language of ‘Big Society’ .............................................................................................................. 6 The impact of ‘Big Society’ .................................................................................................................. 8 ‘Below the radar’: community engagement, empowerment and social action: critical issues .................................................................................................................. 9 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Next steps ............................................................................................................................................ 15 End notes ............................................................................................................................................. 15 References ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Friend Or Foe? Lobbying in British Democracy
    Friend or Foe? Lobbying in British Democracy A discussion paper by Philip Parvin Friend or Foe? Lobbying in British Democracy Text and graphics © Hansard Society 2007 Published by the Hansard Society, 40-43 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JA Tel: 020 7438 1222. Fax: 020 7438 1229. Email: [email protected] All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, without the prior permission of the Hansard Society. The Hansard Society is an independent, non-partisan educational charity which exists to promote effective parliamentary democracy. For more information about other Hansard Society publications visit our website at www.hansardsociety.org.uk The views expressed in this publication are those of the author. The Hansard Society, as an independent non-party organisation, is neither for nor against. The Society is, however, happy to publish these views and to invite analysis and discussion of them. ISBN 978 0 900432 63 2 Cover design by Ross Ferguson Sub-editing by Virginia Gibbons Printed and bound in Great Britain by Premier Corporate Mail Limited Contents Page Foreword 3 Executive Summary 4 Introduction 5 Chapter 1: Who are the Lobbyists? 9 Chapter 2: Perceptions of the Lobbying Industry 22 Chapter 3: Lobbying and British Democracy 31 Appendix: Research Methodology 35 1 Acknowledgements Dr Philip Parvin was Director of the Hansard Society’s Study and Scholars Programme until 2006. He currently teaches politics at Cambridge University. The Hansard Society is grateful to Ellwood and Atfield who have made this project possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Building a New Politics? Politics? Half of Us Claim to Be Interested in Politics; and Only an Approximate Quarter of Us Are Satisfied with the UK Parliament
    New paradigms in public policy NEW PARADIGMS IN PUBLIC POLICY Building a new The average UK citizen is disengaged and disappointed with politics. Seven in ten of us have little or no trust in politicians; only Building a new politics? politics? half of us claim to be interested in politics; and only an approximate quarter of us are satisfied with the UK parliament. Here, Gerry Stoker argues that citizens have to get more involved if the UK government is to effectively confront problems facing British society and find democratic, representative solutions. Academics fall into two established camps on the approaches we can take: one group suggests that policymakers should focus on restoring citizen faith in existing representative processes while the other urges them to get citizens more actively involved through new participatory and deliberative processes. We need social scientists Gerry Stoker to draw on and develop these insights, and take on the challenge of designing a new way to tackle anti-political attitudes. The new and evolving political, economic and societal challenges in twenty-first century Britain require policymakers to adapt and change the way they consider their craft. New paradigms in public policy, a series of reports published by the British Academy Policy Centre, examines a range of policy issues, explaining the current situation and policy approaches and making suggestions as to why and how concepts should be adapted, reformed or reinvented. SPONSORED BY ISBN: 978-0-85672-596-8 10 –11 Carlton House Terrace London SW1Y 5AH Telephone: +44 (0)207 969 5200 Fax: +44 (0)207 969 5300 Registered Charity: Number 233176 by Gerry Stoker The British Academy, established by Royal Charter in 1902, champions and supports the humanities and social sciences across the UK and internationally.
    [Show full text]
  • By Professor Paul Webb (Sussex University) Who Addresses the Issue of Disaffection with Party Politics in Democratic Systems
    democracy and p olitical parties bbyy PProrofessofessorr PPaaulul Webb With commentaries by John Healey MP, Geoff Mulgan and Baroness Shephard Democracy Series Editorial Board: Alex Brazier, Director, Parliament and Government Programme, Hansard Society Kate Jenkins, Vice Chair, Hansard Society Peter Riddell, The Times and Hansard Society Council Publications in the Democracy Series: Democracy and Islam Democracy and Voting Democracy and Capitalism Published by Hansard Society, 40-43 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JA. Tel: 020 7438 1222. Fax: 020 7438 1229. Email: [email protected] © Hansard Society 2007 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the Hansard Society. The Hansard Society is an independent, non-partisan educational charity, which exists to promote effective parliamentary democracy. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors. The Hansard Society and the DCA are neither for nor against. They are, however, happy to publish these views and to invite analysis and discussion of them. For further information on Hansard Society publications, visit our website at www.hansardsociety.org.uk ISBN: 978 0 900432 68 3 Design, print and production by Premier Corporate Mail Limited Cover design by Ross Ferguson Sub-editing by Virginia Gibbons The Democracy Series Democracy and Political Parties Contents Page No. Preface 2 Biographies 3 Political Parties and Democratic Disconnect: A Call for Research 5 Professor Paul Webb The challenge is to meld representation and participation 26 Geoff Mulgan The evidence is on the doorstep 29 Baroness Shephard Research is helpful – but action is essential 32 John Healey MP 1 Democracy and Political Parties The Democracy Series Preface Alex Brazier Editor, Democracy Series Political parties were, by far, the most dominant method of political organisation in 20th century Britain and they remain central to the functioning of the democratic system.
    [Show full text]
  • British Government and Politics | University College London
    10/02/21 PUBLG043: British Government and Politics | University College London PUBLG043: British Government and View Online Politics Professor Meg Russell 1. Kavanagh, Dennis, Richards, David, Smith M, Geddes A. British Politics. 5th ed. Oxford University Press; 2006. 2. Moran, Michael. Politics and Governance in the UK. 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan; 2011. 3. Peele, Gillian. Governing the UK: British Politics in the 21st Century. 4th ed. Blackwell; 2004. 4. Leach R, Coxall WN, Robins LJ. British Politics. Vol Palgrave foundations. 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan; 2011. 5. Jones B, Norton P, Copus C, Garnett M. Politics UK. 8th ed. Routledge; 2014. 6. Jowell JL, Oliver D. The Changing Constitution. 7th ed. Oxford University Press; 2011. 1/85 10/02/21 PUBLG043: British Government and Politics | University College London 7. Dunleavy, Patrick. Developments in British Politics 7. Palgrave Macmillan; 2003. https://www.dawsonera.com/guard/protected/dawson.jsp?name=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/ shibboleth&dest=http://www.dawsonera.com/depp/reader/protected/external/AbstractVie w/S9781403940438 8. Dunleavy, Patrick. Developments in British Politics 8. Palgrave Macmillan; 2006. 9. Russell M. Constitutional Politics. In: Developments in British Politics 9. Palgrave Macmillan; 2011:7-28. 10. Richards D, Smith MJ, Hay C, eds. Institutional Crisis in 21st Century Britain. Vol Understanding governance. Palgrave Macmillan; 2014. http://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/product/openreader?id=UCL&isbn=9781137334398 11. Hazell R. Constitutional Futures Revisited: Britain’s Constitution to 2020. Palgrave Macmillan; 2008. 12. Bogdanor, Vernon. The British Constitution in the Twentieth Century. Vol British Academy centenary monographs. Published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press; 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Gains and Strains
    GAINS AND STRAINS: THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR IN THE UK 1996-2006 The occasion for this last reappearance on a voluntary sector platform (the final one, I promise) is the tenth anniversary of the publication of the report of the Independent Commission1 and the chance I’ve been offered to reflect, both on what has happened since our report was published and on what that experience suggests for future developments . I’ve heard several times lately talk of a “Deakin Agenda” being completed (the Minister for Third Sector used that expression again the other day). I suppose it’s inevitable that the chair’s name gets stuck on the exercises like this: but today gives me the opportunity to stress that this report was in every sense a collective effort in which all the members of our Commission (some of whom are here today) were closely involved and one that was generously supported, both in cash (by the Joseph Rowntree and Esmee Fairbairn Foundations) and in kind. The report that we produced together stands on four legs. • First, our assessment of relations between VCS and government and our conclusion that the terms of that relationship needed to be radically changed and those changes given formal expression in a negotiated agreement. • Second, the pressing need for a change in the regulatory environment, especially that in which charities (a large part but not the totality of the sector) had to operate. • Third, the importance of cultural change within the sector to enable it to address the new challenges that were then emerging – not just in service delivery but across the whole range of its activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Personal Politics: Democracy, Participation and Collective Action Greg Power C10264 Carnegie A5 Report 1/6/06 12:36 Pm Page 2
    C10264_Carnegie_A5_Report 31/5/06 4:43 pm Page 1 Democracy and Civil Society Programme Personal Politics: Democracy, Participation and Collective Action Greg Power C10264_Carnegie_A5_Report 1/6/06 12:36 pm Page 2 Democracy and Civil Society Programme Contents 02 Introduction by the Carnegie UK Trust 03 About the Author 05 Author’s note 05 Introduction 05 1. Trends in Political Participation and Engagement 10 Participation in elections 10 Election turnout UK and Ireland 1945-2005 11 New patterns of political behaviour 13 Political participation 1986-2002 13 Conclusion 16 2. The Political Response to Changing Patterns of Engagement 17 The rhetoric of political empowerment 17 Policies for political empowerment 20 Citizenship and community 20 Local co-governance 21 Devolution and decentralisation 22 Conclusion 23 3. The Policy Community and the Pressure for Change 25 The rise of new citizens 25 Post-democracy: the case for institutional reform 26 Citizenship and democracy 28 Social justice and democracy 29 Media and politics 30 Conclusion 32 4. Next Steps for Democratic Engagement 34 1) Embedding democracy amongst ‘new citizens’ 35 2) Promoting participation and representation 37 3) Reaching the hard-to-reach 38 Conclusion 40 References 41 June 2006 C10264_Carnegie_A5_Report 1/6/06 12:36 pm Page 3 Personal Politics: Demoracy, Participation and Collective Action Introduction by the Carnegie UK Trust Personal Politics: Democracy, Participation and Collective Action is one of two publications commissioned by the Carnegie UK Trust to inform 03 the launch of the Trust’s new Democracy and Civil Society Programme. Carnegie’s interest in strengthening democracy and civil society goes back many decades.
    [Show full text]
  • Spinning on a Cleaner Cycle: How Media Management Became 'Respectable' Under the UK's Coalition Government
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Sussex Research Online Spinning on a cleaner cycle: how media management became 'respectable' under the UK's coalition government Abstract The issue of media management or ‘spin’ came to dominate Tony Blair’s time in office; so much so that even his own Press Secretary, Alastair Campbell, came to concede that they had over-used it. When David Cameron came to power, although he has acknowledged that he learnt many political lessons from Tony Blair, he was keen to ensure that his Government did not make the same mistakes in terms of the over-use of spin. In this article, based on interviews with key players, a comparison is made between the way the two prime ministers, and in particular their press secretaries, managed their media relations in their first years in office. This article, written by two political journalists who witnessed the first years of Blair and Cameron at first hand, characterises the Blair media regime as practising ‘spin heavy’ and the Cameron regime, under Andy Coulson, as practising ‘spin lite’. It concludes, that both in terms of relations with the media, and how that relationship played out vis a vis coverage, ‘spin lite’ was a more successful formulation. Keywords Spin, spin doctors, political correspondents, prime minister, press secretary, Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell, David Cameron, Andy Coulson 1 Introduction "I cannot believe we are the first and only government that has ever wanted to put the best possible gloss on what you've done". So Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, told the Leveson inquiry into the ethics of the press on May 21st (Faulkner & Chapman 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • The Report of Power, an Independent Inquiry Into Britain's Democracy
    Power to the People: the report of Power, an Independent Inquiry into Britain’s Democracy Standard Note: SN/PC/3948 Last updated: 14 March 2006 Author: Isobel White Parliament and Constitution Centre The Power Inquiry was established and funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust to investigate why there has been a decline in participation in formal politics and to make proposals to reverse this trend. The report of the Power Inquiry was published on 27 February 2006. Contents A. Background 2 B. Members of the Commission 3 C. The recommendations 4 D. Links to relevant Research Papers and Standard Notes 7 E. Press comment 8 Standard Notes are compiled for the benefit of Members of Parliament and their personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Members and their staff but cannot advise others. A. Background The introduction to the report gives a summary of the work of the Commission: Power was established by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust to celebrate their centenaries. Its mission was to understand how participation in British politics could be increased and deepened. To do this it established a Commission of ten people from a variety of social and political backgrounds to consider the evidence generated by the following activities: • a series of seven meetings across the country at which the Commission questioned 35 witnesses about political participation; • 143 face-to-face interviews with witnesses conducted by
    [Show full text]